On Tuesday 02 June 2009 02:38:53 pm Till Maas wrote:
> On Monday 01 June 2009 15:49:20 Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> > On May 26, 2009, at 5:08 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > > 1) Currently EPEL only provides a buildsys-build rpm package at:
> > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/i386/
epel does not provide this. fedora project does.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to have also a buildsys-build comps group in the
> > > EPEL comps
> > > file, so one can easier build epel rpms with a gpg check enabled
> > > setup.
It cant hurt at all
> >
> > The EPEL comps file? We have one of those? Or would this be a
> > separate yumgroups.xml type file specifically used by createrepo?
> > Anyway, I think this sounds like a good idea.
>
> There is one:
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/comps/comps-el5.xml.in?view=log
> I just created the buildsys-build group from the contents of the buildsys-
> build package I have. Btw. who maintains the package list for EPEL? I
> noticed it differs from the F11 one.
It is maintainer managed the same as fedora. if no one updates it that it
doesnt get updated. if you want you packages listed its up to you to add
them.
> > > 2) Add the rpm macros from
> > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/buildgroups/rhel5/i386/buildsys-
> > > macros-5-4.el5.noarch.rpm
im honestly not sure if we should add the macros to epel-release it would
mean then that you must have epel enabled in your mock config to build for EL-4
and EL-5. it would also mean that we need to have mock updated for all active
releases with new epel configs since the existing configs would be broken.
which would need to be tightly controlled. since epel-testing or epel building
would be broken during the stages of transition. mock could be useful for
people building things for rhel but not epel. if Red Hat decides to add them
to redhat-release or centos adds them to centos-release we will end up with
conflicts (im not aware of any plans to add them but im not really in the know)
however it is really the right place for them. though we could possibly get
away with making the comps group require epel-release and not buildsys-macros.
> > > to the epel-release package. In Fedora the dist macro is also in
> > > fedora-
> > > release. The reason for this is the same as for 1).
> >
> > I don't see any reason not to do this.
>
> Will you or someone else do this I should/can I do this, too?
>
> Regards
> Till

Attachment:
signature.ascDescription: This is a digitally signed message part.